Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Gilbert. Hanna <br /> <br />Ar"K o.S\ -:s a.:::, ) N PJa:#Iz <br />~ <br />\t.\D 6\OJ\ch. <br />~~l ~~ <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Cc: <br /> <br />Doug. Krieg er @ state. co. us <br />Wednesday, December 24,2003 8:37 AM <br />swsr (Statewide Water Supply Initiative) <br />rick.brown @ state .co .us; Steve. Puttmann @ state.co. us; John. Ton ko @ state.co~ us; <br />David.Graf@ state.co.us <br />Subject: DOW participation and input <br /> <br />Hi Susan, <br />SWSI participants from DOW met last week in Salida in anticipation of the next round of meetings. Up until now <br />we our participation has been somewhat curtailed as we have attempted to resolve our role in the process. I <br />believe we now have a more focused approach and will actively assist with your process. Our expertise can be of <br />value as we discuss some key issues and move towards project permitting aspects: <br /> <br />. Native aquatic species'" these involve those species that are already federally listed as threatened or <br />endangered, and also state-risted species that we are managing so as to prevent federallisHng. <br />. Water quality - stated goals of maintaining or improving water quality standards on which wildlife species or <br />recreation depend. <br />. Recreation - particularly as related to standing water wildlife recreat~on and habitat. <br />. Stream flows - document stream flow and f~sh habitat relationships. <br /> <br />Other considerations: <br /> <br />. The DOW have a number of b~ologists, water quality experts; and water specialists that can assist in <br />SWSI~ Although we should have a dedicated point contact for each basint please expect that a number of <br />individuals may actual participate for our agency depending upon the issue involved so as to provide the <br />most accurate information. <br />. For the Arkansas Basin our representative as a technrcal advisor is still not listed (as of 11/03 summary). <br />That person should be John Tanka Uohn.tonko@state.co.us or 719-561-5304). <br />. There is a key document that should be utilized as the process considers reservoir levels and stream flow <br />trade-offs for potential water options for the Arkansas basin. In 1993~ severa~ agencies (Colorado Dept of <br />Natural Resources, US Bureau of Reclamationt US Bureau of Land Management, and US Forest Service) <br />signed an MOU with the goal of creating a scientific foundation for river management processes. The <br />report (Arkansas River Water Needs AssessmentJ edited by Roy E. Smith and Linda M. HiI~ was <br />completed in 2000 and provides detalled informatjon on the stream flow and reservoir level requirements <br />for commercial boating, private boatingt fisheries and wildlife, and fishing4 The report is not availabre <br />online~ and is contained in a three-ring binder of about 300+ pages which I will send YOUa This document <br />has been used to examine the potential impacts to wildlife and recreation for the DNR Flow Program as <br />well as other water management operat~ons (exchanges, transfers)~ The major chapters are: <br /> <br />-Institutional and Legal Analysis (CU Natural Resource Law Center) <br />-Hydrological Analysis (BLM National Applied Resource Science Center) <br />-Natural Resources Assessment (DOW, BLM) <br />-Recreational Assessment (BLMr DOW, DPOR, EDAW) <br /> <br />We appreciate the weU structured process that you and ewes have managed. Your summaries have been <br />timely, accurate and useful. Keep up the good work. The DOW looks forward to the next round of meetings and <br />assisting you w~th the process and deliberations. <br /> <br />Doug <br /> <br />3/8/2004 <br />